The Road from Copenhagen

Transcription

1 The Road from Copenhagen Stakeholdersmeeting CG BKE / GC ES 18 february 2010 Ulrik Lenaerts (FOD BuZa), Geert Fremout (FOD VVVL), Stéphane Nicolas (AWAC), Etienne Hannon (FOD VVVL), Vicky Noens (LNE), Sophie Vancauwenbergh (LNE), Peter Wittoeck (FOD VVVL)

2 Process Copenhagen Accord Opt in formula (association to the Accord) Annex I quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 to be submitted by 31 January 2010 (Appendix I) Non Annex I parties will implement mitigation actions included these to be submitted by 31 January 2010 (Appendix II) 56 Parties have communicated targets or actions (Parties responsible for 80% of global emissions). More than 30 other countries have communicated association. Early February 94 Parties have communicated some kind of support/association Elements for immediate action : fast start finance for period approaching 30 Billion USD Elements for implementation in relation with UNFCCC process but with ambiguity: Global Panel on Finance, MRV, Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, Technology Mechanism Reading most Parties (including EU) : no third track for negotiations ;draft Council Conclusions for Environment Council 15 March : «UNDERLINES the need to integrate the political guidance given in the Accord in the negotiating texts. Review clause latest by 2015 in relation with science and also 1,5 C target

3 Process AWG LCA decision CP.15 (Convention Track) Extension of the mandate and to present the outcome of its work to COP16 Cancun for adoption Weakness: no legally bindingness included as an end goal (was included in the one but last version of Copenhagen Accord but disagreement India and China) AWG LCA to continue drawing on the LCA report to the COP as well as work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report Mexico mandated to make arrangements for consultations or meetings (possible tension between top down versus bottom up process approach).

4 Process AWG KP decision CMP.5 (Kyoto Track) Preamble recalls: No gap between 1st and 2nd CP and Annex I leadership Results of AWG KP to be delivered for adoption by CMP6 (Mexico): mandate unchanged; Draft texts as in report to CMP will be the basis for negotiations (implicitly means legally binding outcome because amendments KP art 3.9); Mexico mandated to make arrangements for consultations or meetings (see remark on process LCA).

5 Shared vision Progress in Copenhagen negotiations Shared vision is contained in the «core text» (L.7 Rev.1) of 16 December 2009 as forwarded to 2010: Detailed drafting negotiations took place until 17 December: some progress was made on drafting in the preamble, especially rights language; deep disagreement on the long term goal for mitigation, midterm goals, and on a long term goal for finance (placeholders for long term goals on other building blocks were not addressed in detail) ; Other important issues are still unresolved: low carbon development; relation with social development and equity; relation with trade regime; protection of most vulnerable countries/groups; biodiversity. China and other DC s still wanted a review of implementation rather than the adequacy of actions, and unclear whether it would have been possible to get both Michael Zammit Cutajar, chairing, produced a revised shared vision text early on Friday 18 Jan this was well drafted, especially the detailed issues around rights but in the face of intractable disagreement on other issues it was withdrawn entirely leaving only L.7 rev.1 itself, whose brackets reflect options rather than the state of negotiations

6 Shared vision Copenhagen Accord Recognizes the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius Only implicitly refers to 25-40% reduction scenarios for developed countries by and global reductions of 50% by 2050 by stating that agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, Calls for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius NB China forced removal of the 50% by 2050 (all) and 80% (developed) targets

7 Shared vision Outstanding issues A long term goal on finance? Can we accept a 1.5 degrees in some form? Can we live without the 50% and 80% figures for 2050? [How] can we move the big issues (review, long term goal, low carbon development, relation with social, economic, development and trade objectives) forward in June? Biggest challenge in coming months how to move Accord concepts on long term goals and review into treaty text and improve them. Overall challenge : how to fill the gap between scientific needs and agreed political goals or actions

8 Mitigation developed countries No significant progress in KP & LCA tracks on key issues in Copenhagen Copenhagen Accord - Low emission development strategy mentioned - Appendix 1 : bottom-up pledges by Annex 1 (Switzerland & Ukraine missing) - (Kyoto Parties further strengthen targets under KP) - MRV in accordance with existing and further guidelines adopted by the COP - Accounting rigorous, robust and transparent Outstanding Issues - The gap to the 25-40% by 2020 wrt 1990 (IPCC) - Long term target : 80-95% by 2050 wrt to 1990 (IPCC) - The Kyoto toolbox : (surplus) AAUs, accounting, LULUCF, compliance (Implementation) / Next steps comparability debate close the gap guidelines for MRV

9 Mitigation developed countries Copenhagen Accord Appendix I Party Emission Base Condition Reduction year in 2020 Australia -5 up to 2000 Ambition of global agreement 15 or -25% Belarus -5% / -10% 1990 Access to KP flex mex / EIT Canada -17% 2005 In line with US legislative. process Croatia -5% 1990 EU accession à EU targets EU+27MS -20% / -30% 1990 Global and comprehensive agr. Iceland -30% 1990 Joint effort with EU Japan -25% 1990 Fair and effective intnl. framework Kazakhstan -15% 1992 Liechtenstein - 20% / -30 % 1990 Global and comprehensive agr. Monaco -30% 1990 Flex mex New Zealand -10 % / -20% 1990 Ambition and toolbox global agr. Norway -30% / -40 % 1990 Global and comprehensive agr. Russian Federation -15% / -25% 1990 LULUCF-rules / efforts by global emitters US -17% 2005 Domestic legislation / association to CA by Annex 1 and major emitters

10 Mitigation developing countries Progress under LCA-track in Copenhagen Some progress on registry/mechanism to match actions and support Copenhagen Accord Low emission development strategies mentioned Mitigation Actions in Appendix II 27 countries Brazil : emissions -36,1% / 38,9 % wrt projections in 2020 China : CO2-emission intensity of GDP -40 /-45% (wrt GDP) India : emission intensity of GDP -20% / -25 % by 2020 wrt 2005 Indonesia : -26 % by 2020 (?) Mexico : GHG emissions -30% wrt business as usual by 2020 South Africa : - 34 % under BAU by 2020

11 Mitigation developing countries Copenhagen Accord (ctd.) Reporting on actions and inventories in National Communications Every two year Measuring, Reporting Non supported actions : domestic MRV (+ International consultation and analysis ) Supported actions : Registry + international MRV Outstanding Issues Assessment of level of ambition (15%-30% deviation from baseline) Implementation / Next steps Guidelines on MRV (and international consultation and analysis) Capacity building MRV

12 Mitigation targets and actions Source :

13 Mitigation Market Mechanisms Progress in Copenhagen negotiations Important decision of CMP.5 on CDM to improve regional distribution and governance (some BE proposals) Little progress under AWG-KP (improvement of existing mechanisms) and AWG-LCA (introduction of new sectoral mechanisms) Copenhagen Accord Market = one opportunity for cost-effectiveness of mitigation actions Outstanding issues Guaranty on continuity of existing mechanisms (JI/CDM/IET) for post 2012 Establishment of new sectoral market mechanisms Willingness to discuss market mechanisms while pledges for developed country targets are low

14 Mitigation REDD+ Progress in KP and LCA negotiations Principles and safeguards (biodiversity, indigenous peoples,..) Scope Methodological issues (SBSTA-decision) Phased Approach Copenhagen Accord Immediate establishment of mechanism including REDD+ (to mobilize financial resources from developed countries) Outstanding Issues Quantitative Objective Role of public finance vs. carbon market Implementation/next steps FR/NO initiative Further negotiation in LCA REDD+ - decision in Cancún

15 Mitigation sectoral approaches International aviation and maritime transport No progress in LCA-negotiations Not mentioned in Copenhagen Accord alternative sources of finances Outstanding : targets CBDR UNFCCC vs. IMO/ICAO Next steps : Back to square 1 Agriculture Good progress in negotiations Not mentioned in Copenhagen Accord Decision to establish work program under SBSTA

16 Adaptation Progress in Copenhagen negotiations (LCA): One of the (few) issues that was negotiated in Contact Group right to the end at Copenhagen A lot of progress was made in the LCA text, although discussions were strongly dominated by finance (support) & MRV issues Some issues still need to be cleared out (see outstanding issues) LCA text was more or less ready for a higher level of discussion (Ministers) However: Copenhagen Accord = main outcome of COP 15

17 Adaptation: Copenhagen Accord Mentioning of the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme + - No mentioning of EU idea of a Framework Focus on Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States & Africa is mentioned, also in terms of financing Commitment: developed countries SHALL provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology & CB Certain MRV requirements for delivery of finance by developed countries, including finance on adaptation Review clause: assessment implementation CA by 2015 could also concern adaptation actions & financing NO prioritization in terms of fast-start finance for CB & immediate adaptation needs; only balanced allocation between adaptation & mitigation Vague language about long term financing for adaptation: new multilateral funding Inclusion of response measures

18 Adaptation Outstanding issues in LCA text: Definition of vulnerability: open vs restricted Institutional arrangements: existing vs new Structure of an international mechanism for loss & damage Inclusion of response measures: yes / no debate Monitoring & reporting requirements: light vs obligatory Implementation / next steps: Especially related to finance provisions: Operationalisation of fast start finance for adaptation? New multilateral long term funding for adaptation? Role of the CPH Green Climate Fund? Get link response measures adaptation in the text to be interpreted as strictly as possible Coherent formulation on vulnerable countries throughout the text Main priority: integrate CPH Accord in LCA negotiating text!!

19 Technology Progress in Copenhagen: objectives Nature of actions to undertake (domestic, bi/multilateral) nature of «Technology Mechanism» composed of 2 parts : «Technology Executive Committee» (TEC) (= enhanced EGTT) «Climate Technology Centre» (CTC) Support functions Linked to a network of national/regional centres for technological innovation

20 Technology Copenhagen Accord: 11 : «In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities» 3 (adaptation): [..] developed countries shall provide [..] technology [..] to support the implementation of adaptation action in DCs 5 (mitigation): NAMAs seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support 8 (finance): [..] funding as well as improved access shall be provided to DCs [..] to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including [..] technology development and transfer [..] 10 (Copenhagen Green Climate Fund): [..] the CPH Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in DCs related to mitigation including [..] technology development and transfer

21 Technology Outstanding issues in the LCA-text Institutional arrangements: Status and functions of the TEC : «executive» (G77) vs. «facilitating» (EU/UG) Relationship between TEC and CTC Link with LCGPs/LEDSs/NAMAs and the arrangements on adaptation Regional/national technology centres and networks : central role based on «bottom-up» approach (EU) vs. Centralised «technology hub» (US) Link with the financial mechanism: Role of TEC : funding competences (G77) or not (UG/EU) Detailed list of eligible actions (G77) vs. Decision on financial support to be taken by financial institutions (UG/EU) IPR Regime (Intellectual Property Rights) flexibility (G77) vs. Integrity of the system (UG/EU) Implementation / next steps Identification of fast start activities (pilot projects?) Further work on the LCA negotiation text (with a view to adopt a COPdecision in Cancún)

22 Finance [Progress in Copenhagen Negotiations] LCA: Focus on Institutions and Resources Institutional Arrangements Finance Board Climate Fund/Facility Existing Fund/Entity Financial Resources New and Additional Simplified, improved, effective and equitable access, including direct access Public Private Innovative International Auctioning & Cap-and-Trade Contributing Parties = All Parties

23 Copenhagen Accord Institutional Arrangements High Level Panel Copenhagen Green Climate Fund Financial Resources New and Additional Improved access Wide variety of sources Alternative sources Contributing Parties = Developed Countries Numbers : $ 30 billion Annually by 2020: $ 100 billion Adaptation

24 [LCA-texts] Institutions Finance Board Climate Fund/Facility Existing Fund/Entity Resources New and Additional Access Public Private Innovative sources All Parties, except LDCs LCA-text versus CA-text Copenhagen Accord Institutions High Level Panel Green Climate Fund An operating entity Resources New and Additional Access Wide variety Alternative sources Developed Parties

25 Outstanding Issues Role of High Level Panel & Green Climate Fund towards UNFCCC-COP Role of International Financial Institutions Improved Access Additionality Arrangements on Long-Term Public Financing Alternative Financial Resources MRV of support Contributing Parties

26 Implementation Fast-Start Financing $ 30 billion (Total) - $ 10,3 billion (EU) Focus on Least Developed Countries and Most Vulnerable States Balanced Allocation between Adaptation and Mitigation Additionality - Transparency High Level Panel High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Financing Ban Ki-moon, Gordon Brown (UK) & Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) Integrating Copenhagen Elements in LCA-text

27 Legal issues Copenhagen Accord Copenhagen Accord Objective: overarching COP decision with specific COP decisions about subtopics; with mandate 2010 negotiations Result: political agreement (30 parties), to be translated into COP decision (all 192 parties) = failed (no consensus) => takes note Meaning? Issues: COP decision needed for implementation of some elements of Accord No mandate for legally binding agreement Which text basis for negotiations?

28 Legal issues legal form Legally binding instrument: Cancun Agreement? EU: preference for single legal instrument + simple instrument (eg. ratification, etc.) + participation and comparable efforts US in same instrument + possible solution hot air - Lowest common denominator = KP acquis (ex. compliance) at stake - No certainty about ratification US - Red line for G77 EU open tot discuss other options 2nd commitment period KP + parallel instrument?

29 Overall assessment C.A. 2 C, Review clause (science based/1,5 C?) Not legally binding, no process leading to a LBA Mitigation efforts AI : bottom-up, pledge & review ; ambition level DC : MRV ; ambition level Progress on finance, technology, REDD+ Immediate implementation of fast start Adaptation

30 Outcome of AWGs Negotiating texts were condensed KP 101 p. 42 p. LCA 174 p. 45 p. Progress: Adaptation, Capacity Building, REDD+, Tech, Finance Shared Vision, Mitigation (incl. C market) Extension of mandate of both AWGs until COP 16 / CMP 6 Further work on the basis of AWG outcomes Mandate to COP 16 host Mexico to make necessary arrangements

31 Further steps Strategic challenges: UNFCCC vs. 3rd track Integrating parallel processes: HLP, Merkel Initiative, Future of the Kyoto Protocol Legally bindingness vs. domestic legislation Top-down vs. Bottom-up Credibility vs. Distrust Leadership vs. Conditionalities Strategic alliances for a successful outcome

32 Further steps Next steps: 15 March 2010 : Environment Council March 2010 : consultations by Mexico March 2010 : European Council April : UNFCCC session (tbd 22 Feb) Merkel Initiative (pre SBs/AWG) 31 May 11 June 2010 : SBs (+AWGs) Bonn 01 July 2010: Start BE Presidency EU 1 or 2 additional AWG sessions, to be decided 29 November 10 December : COP 16 / CMP 6 Cancún

33 Thank you!